IPv6 deployment excuses

Mon Jul 4 18:50:06 UTC 2016

On Monday, July 4, 2016, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','baldur.norddahl at gmail.com');>> wrote:

> On 4 July 2016 at 11:41, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
> wrote:
>
> > With end to end NAT, you can still configure your UPnP capable NAT
> > boxes to restrict port forwarding.
> >
>
> Only if you by NAT mean "home network NAT". No large ISP has or will deploy
> a carrier NAT router that will respect UPnP. That does not scale and is a
> security nightmare besides.
>
> We could deploy MAP
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapping_of_Address_and_Port (which scales)
> and the user could then use the belowed "end to end NAT" method on that.
> But why would they? MAP requires IPv6 so they already have end to end
> transparency using IPv6.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>

Always so funny how people love talking how great MAP scales, yet it has
never been deployed at scale. 464XLAT and ds-lite have been deployed at
real scale, so has 6RD.

MAP is like beta max. Technically great, but reality is poor.